D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]
At first glance I like a lot of the changes. And the bard looks fun.
Pretty disappointed that Wizardry is still the only type of magic the mage has access to. What are we even referring to Wizardry as? It's not an arcane tradition as far as I can tell, just a "class feature" which has traditions within it.
Pretty disappointed that Wizardry is still the only type of magic the mage has access to. What are we even referring to Wizardry as? It's not an arcane tradition as far as I can tell, just a "class feature" which has traditions within it.
Neonchameleon
Legend
You didn't find it in the news because the official date says 20/09. They've just uploaded the thing a day early.
New Playtest Package 9/19: Everyone's Chapter by Chapter Impressions
Character Sheet - Looks well laid out, and not too complicated, so I think it is a good start.
Skills and Backgrounds - Well, I see the backgrounds but not really the skills. They list some in the backgrounds, I know, but I'm not sure if I'm expected to make up proficiencies, or if they will have a comprehensive list sometime later. I do like the idea of tool proficiencies, as it makes sense to me that people learn how to use the stuff they own.
What I don't like, is that there doesn't seem to be a way to pick up new proficiencies. I would prefer training rules to spend gold and time on to get more, and skill checks don't seem to be something that would break the game if you became a jack of all trades. You would after all, be passing up the chance to use that gold on something else. Backgrounds are still great though, and I welcome their ability to customize characters.
Bestiary - I'd call this about done. A lot of the improvements that 4e made to monster stats and the format of their stat block have been retained. It isn't quite as tactically interesting as 4e, but that can't be helped unless you want to make it as minis dependent as 4e. Needs 2e flavour text to flesh it out, but that's about it. I still miss a morale check to remind me that creatures shouldn't fight to the death, but I can assign morale numbers to the monsters myself.
Classes:
Barbarians - Can choose between beserker and noble savage, which is good. Beserkers can fight naked, which is great!
Bards - Still not understanding why this class is the jack of all trades. He is surrounded by people all the time. Now the Ranger, that needs to be a jack of all trades, because he is a loner who has to fend for himself. Seems to be about buffing and de-buffing, and not a lot of personal power for himself to do damage. Not particularly interesting to me, and I hate the silly flavour text of the bard who brings a guitar to a dungeon crawl.
Clerics - Like the return of specialty priests, but would be better done with proper spell selection instead of this big wall of text they have with domains. There aren't going to many options for types of gods you can choose right out of the player's handbook. 2e Spell Spheres would be something to consider here. Not much seems to have changed since the last packet.
Druids - Like the Cleric Domains "Circle" spells seem to add too much text for the amount of customization you get. Everything else looks alright though, and I like the return to 2e style abilities and better rules for shapeshifting. This does not seem to have changed much either.
Fighter - Again, martial paths seem to require a lot of text for a little bit of customization. I like the idea of specialization and martial paths though, but I don't know why RPG systems always downplay the effectiveness of using shields. Shields are pretty essential for melee combat, but D&D has never really given them their due.
Mage - Arcane traditions aren't quite enough customization for me. I like that the tradition improves the spells of your tradition so you are more likely to select them, but I would prefer that people cast within their tradition almost exclusively, rather than making every spellcaster a more generalist mage that simply is very good at one school of magic.
Monk - Don't care. I think of the monk as about as worthy of core book treatment as the Wu-Jen, Samurai, ninjas and the rest. But then, I started with 2e.
Paladin - Too much cleric, not enough knight.
Ranger - As I said previously, I think the Ranger should be the jack of all trades class to match the solitary sentinel archetype. Brew potions when there is no cleric around, fight with stealth rather than force, know a bit of secret lore to understand the land and its dangers without having to run off to a wizard sage... etc.
At least they've effectively solved his identity crisis by removing a particular fighting style from the class, and making him more of an assassin of monsters. It has also solved the problem of "favoured enemy" making him more about killing big monsters or killing many monsters at a time. I could also see a build that specializes in silently taking out monsters one by one with stealth.
Rogue - Assassin and Thief should probably be joined by a few other rogue archetypes, like charlatan, spy or bounty hunter. Looks good at first glance, but I'd have to see how they play. I'd frankly probably put the bard in here as a rogue subclass like the assassin and thief than its own class.
Character Sheet - Looks well laid out, and not too complicated, so I think it is a good start.
Skills and Backgrounds - Well, I see the backgrounds but not really the skills. They list some in the backgrounds, I know, but I'm not sure if I'm expected to make up proficiencies, or if they will have a comprehensive list sometime later. I do like the idea of tool proficiencies, as it makes sense to me that people learn how to use the stuff they own.
What I don't like, is that there doesn't seem to be a way to pick up new proficiencies. I would prefer training rules to spend gold and time on to get more, and skill checks don't seem to be something that would break the game if you became a jack of all trades. You would after all, be passing up the chance to use that gold on something else. Backgrounds are still great though, and I welcome their ability to customize characters.
Bestiary - I'd call this about done. A lot of the improvements that 4e made to monster stats and the format of their stat block have been retained. It isn't quite as tactically interesting as 4e, but that can't be helped unless you want to make it as minis dependent as 4e. Needs 2e flavour text to flesh it out, but that's about it. I still miss a morale check to remind me that creatures shouldn't fight to the death, but I can assign morale numbers to the monsters myself.
Classes:
Barbarians - Can choose between beserker and noble savage, which is good. Beserkers can fight naked, which is great!
Bards - Still not understanding why this class is the jack of all trades. He is surrounded by people all the time. Now the Ranger, that needs to be a jack of all trades, because he is a loner who has to fend for himself. Seems to be about buffing and de-buffing, and not a lot of personal power for himself to do damage. Not particularly interesting to me, and I hate the silly flavour text of the bard who brings a guitar to a dungeon crawl.
Clerics - Like the return of specialty priests, but would be better done with proper spell selection instead of this big wall of text they have with domains. There aren't going to many options for types of gods you can choose right out of the player's handbook. 2e Spell Spheres would be something to consider here. Not much seems to have changed since the last packet.
Druids - Like the Cleric Domains "Circle" spells seem to add too much text for the amount of customization you get. Everything else looks alright though, and I like the return to 2e style abilities and better rules for shapeshifting. This does not seem to have changed much either.
Fighter - Again, martial paths seem to require a lot of text for a little bit of customization. I like the idea of specialization and martial paths though, but I don't know why RPG systems always downplay the effectiveness of using shields. Shields are pretty essential for melee combat, but D&D has never really given them their due.
Mage - Arcane traditions aren't quite enough customization for me. I like that the tradition improves the spells of your tradition so you are more likely to select them, but I would prefer that people cast within their tradition almost exclusively, rather than making every spellcaster a more generalist mage that simply is very good at one school of magic.
Monk - Don't care. I think of the monk as about as worthy of core book treatment as the Wu-Jen, Samurai, ninjas and the rest. But then, I started with 2e.
Paladin - Too much cleric, not enough knight.
Ranger - As I said previously, I think the Ranger should be the jack of all trades class to match the solitary sentinel archetype. Brew potions when there is no cleric around, fight with stealth rather than force, know a bit of secret lore to understand the land and its dangers without having to run off to a wizard sage... etc.
At least they've effectively solved his identity crisis by removing a particular fighting style from the class, and making him more of an assassin of monsters. It has also solved the problem of "favoured enemy" making him more about killing big monsters or killing many monsters at a time. I could also see a build that specializes in silently taking out monsters one by one with stealth.
Rogue - Assassin and Thief should probably be joined by a few other rogue archetypes, like charlatan, spy or bounty hunter. Looks good at first glance, but I'd have to see how they play. I'd frankly probably put the bard in here as a rogue subclass like the assassin and thief than its own class.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Hmmm ... not the last packet. They haven't finished the druid and will need an update.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Well, just skimming over the changes. Overall I'm impressed, the Bard looks like sick fun to play(am I the only one to notice they don't preppare spells?), the mage now looks neutral enough in flavor to have the sorcerer and warlock (not that I really approve it on principle, but now it look like soemthign i could live with).
Wait, Ability prerrequisites to multiclass are back? ugghh...
Edit: and the Mage one is Intelligence? double ughhh
Wait, Ability prerrequisites to multiclass are back? ugghh...
Edit: and the Mage one is Intelligence? double ughhh
Last edited:
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Yeah. On the one hand, it's a way to reduce abuse, but it's also an unnecessary impediment. I'd probably ignore them, and will suggest in the survey that they be removed.
The rest of the multiclassing rules look pretty solid, though.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Even though I fully expected it, I'm still disappointed about the lack of change in human racial modifiers.
